Overall rating from 1 to 100: 58
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 28, 2007
If you look on the wrappers of Hershey’s chocolate bars this fall, you’ll see a photo of country music star Brad Paisley. This is a strange sight for me. I grew up in West Virginia and attended John Marshall High School in Glen Dale, which is the same small town where Brad Paisley grew up and the high school he attended.
Though I never knew him, as he is a couple years older than I am, the locals say that he was introverted and quiet. Now he is rich and famous and married to Kimberly Williams, the bride from “Father of the Bride” (1991). Their connection is a remarkable story for another time and another review; faithful readers will encounter it someday.
In April of 2002, Paisley came back to our mutual stomping grounds and played “An Evening Back Home” concert (which was spectacular). I remember, while driving up to the concert, seeing a gigantic stretch limo headed for his parents’ home to pick them up. The capacity crowd in the Wheeling Civic Center roared, cheering for our hometown boy who made it big and become a hero. And he still is.
Similarly, John Farley (Seann William Scott) was a nobody from the small town of Forest Meadow, Nebraska, but he grew up and became the famous, inspirational, self-help book author of “Letting Go: How to Get Past Your Past.”
Apparently, Farley had a lot to let go of. He was traumatized as a middle school kid by an abusively demanding gym teacher, Mr. Woodcock (Billy Bob Thornton), and Farley’s father died leaving him and his widowed mother alone.
Farley is invited to receive the honorable “Corn Cob Key to the City,” so the celebrity writer returns home to a hero’s welcome, much like Braid Paisley. But to his horror, his sweet, single mother (Susan Sarandon) has begun dating the dreaded Mr. Woodcock.
This strain between the positive-thinking, self-help guru and the aggressive, critical Phys. Ed. teacher is the main conflict and supposed source of humor. And, at times, it is somewhat funny. Those times are few.
But as the movie progresses, “Mr. Woodcock” becomes remarkably similar to “Meet the Parents” (2000), especially the Robert DeNiro--Ben Stiller battle. In fact, the big, revelatory blow-up scene from “Meet the Parents” is echoed with precision in “Mr. Woodcock.” That being noted, if you have seen neither movie, “Meet the Parents” is far superior. But in both cases, you have a basically good guy who has everything go wrong for him.
I expected “Mr. Woodcock” to be much worse, as far as lewd content, considering its title and Billy Bob Thornton’s presence (“Bad Santa,” 2003). But surprisingly, it isn’t quite as crude and crass as I had feared, though its PG-13 rating is deserved, every whit.
Overall, “Mr. Woodcock” gains momentum, providing a couple chuckles later in the film, but it’s nothing to write home about. In other words, this movie isn’t going to earn director Craig Gillespie the same kind of warm welcome-home celebration that Brad Paisley receives.
Directed by Craig Gillespie
Billy Bob Thornton / Seann William Scott / Susan Sarandon
87 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude sexual content, thematic material, language and a mild drug reference)
Copyright 2007. 191
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Eastern Promises (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 90
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
“Eastern Promises” is an uncomfortably uneasy film. Watching it is like walking through a minefield. This is the kind of movie where you don’t feel safe, even though you know you’re seated in a cushy theater chair.
But don’t misunderstand me: It’s not that “Eastern Promises” is overly suspenseful; that’s not it. The reason this movie is excellent is its characters are so diabolical, we squirm with anxiety about what they might do next. Indeed, there are several loose cannons rolling around on board this ship.
If you’re a Mafia movie fan, as I am, then you’ll be familiar with Joe Pesci’s explosive roles, such as his Tommy DeVito in “Goodfellas” (1990). But “Eastern Promises” has similar (but less flamboyant) nut-jobs who are sleeping tigers, and Naomi Watts’ character repeatedly kicks them.
Anna (Naomi Watts) works in a hospital in London. One of her less fortunate patients has to deliver her baby early, due to hemorrhaging. The tiny child is orphaned at birth. But Anna finds the mother’s diary, which recounts her dark, dreary days. The journal’s contents, written in Russian, are potentially deadly.
Also inhabiting London are some members of the Vory V Zakone (the Russian Mafia). Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) is a wealthy restaurateur with an emotionally unstable son, Kirill (Vincent Cassel, “Ocean’s 12”). They employ the fearsome Siberian named Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen) who coyly claims that’s he’s “just a driver,” but we know (and fear) that he’s so much more.
In true Mafia fashion, these three are capable of anything — especially any unthinkable thing. And Anna, incapable of apathy, insists on having the dangerous diary translated in hopes of finding out whom the baby should belong to.
Now, if you doubt whether Viggo Mortensen could ever pull off “frightening” and a convincing Russian accent, all at the same time, then you’re dead wrong. His performance, mark my words, is Oscar-nomination worthy.
“Eastern Promises” is an exceptional film. It is also gruesome and graphic. This movie isn’t your grandpa’s Mafia, in the vein of the 1930s gangster pictures. “Eastern Promises” has the same grit as a Scorsese film: atmospheric, moody, horrifying and wonderful.
Directed by David Cronenberg
Naomi Watts / Viggo Mortensen / Vincent Cassel
100 min. Thriller / Crime
MPAA: R (for strong brutal and bloody violence, some graphic sexuality, language and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 189
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
“Eastern Promises” is an uncomfortably uneasy film. Watching it is like walking through a minefield. This is the kind of movie where you don’t feel safe, even though you know you’re seated in a cushy theater chair.
But don’t misunderstand me: It’s not that “Eastern Promises” is overly suspenseful; that’s not it. The reason this movie is excellent is its characters are so diabolical, we squirm with anxiety about what they might do next. Indeed, there are several loose cannons rolling around on board this ship.
If you’re a Mafia movie fan, as I am, then you’ll be familiar with Joe Pesci’s explosive roles, such as his Tommy DeVito in “Goodfellas” (1990). But “Eastern Promises” has similar (but less flamboyant) nut-jobs who are sleeping tigers, and Naomi Watts’ character repeatedly kicks them.
Anna (Naomi Watts) works in a hospital in London. One of her less fortunate patients has to deliver her baby early, due to hemorrhaging. The tiny child is orphaned at birth. But Anna finds the mother’s diary, which recounts her dark, dreary days. The journal’s contents, written in Russian, are potentially deadly.
Also inhabiting London are some members of the Vory V Zakone (the Russian Mafia). Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) is a wealthy restaurateur with an emotionally unstable son, Kirill (Vincent Cassel, “Ocean’s 12”). They employ the fearsome Siberian named Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen) who coyly claims that’s he’s “just a driver,” but we know (and fear) that he’s so much more.
In true Mafia fashion, these three are capable of anything — especially any unthinkable thing. And Anna, incapable of apathy, insists on having the dangerous diary translated in hopes of finding out whom the baby should belong to.
Now, if you doubt whether Viggo Mortensen could ever pull off “frightening” and a convincing Russian accent, all at the same time, then you’re dead wrong. His performance, mark my words, is Oscar-nomination worthy.
“Eastern Promises” is an exceptional film. It is also gruesome and graphic. This movie isn’t your grandpa’s Mafia, in the vein of the 1930s gangster pictures. “Eastern Promises” has the same grit as a Scorsese film: atmospheric, moody, horrifying and wonderful.
Directed by David Cronenberg
Naomi Watts / Viggo Mortensen / Vincent Cassel
100 min. Thriller / Crime
MPAA: R (for strong brutal and bloody violence, some graphic sexuality, language and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 189
The Brave One (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Not to be confused with the 1957 film called "The Brave One," which is about a Mexican boy and his bull, this brave one essentially refers to a female superhero (minus the super powers), much like Batman, who becomes a vigilante by taking the law into her own hands. And just like many other superhero stories, the villains create their monstrous tormentor.
And though it has been getting mixed reviews, this critic is here to tell you that this flick "delivers the goods," which is to say, it gives us exactly what we want. Without question, "The Brave One" manipulates us with Hollywood conventions and unlikely occurrences, but it's a good time nonetheless.
I noted that Jodie Foster's character, Erica Bain, evokes the same torn feelings within us that Michael Douglas' William Foster makes us feel in "Falling Down" (1993), another vigilante flick where a regular person goes berserk, lashing out at the evil people of the world. At first, we enjoy this to the point of amusement. But as the afflicted one spins out of control, we begin to cringe and grow concerned.
Erica Bain walks the city with a microphone, recording its organic and inorganic, auditory wonders. She uses these recordings as the ambient backdrop for her radio talk show, "Streetwalk." Bain is deeply in love and unofficially engaged to David (Naveen Andrews, "L O S T"). The wedding invitations have already been ordered.
One fateful night, the two inexplicably enjoy a streetwalk through Central park … again, at night. They are attacked and while she is merely brutally beaten, David is killed. Be warned, this scene is terribly unsettling, especially if you're the type of viewers who identifies with the characters.
As she recovers weeks later, still sore with fear, she purchases a gun and learns how to use it. The rest of the movie depicts Bain's bitterness, enjoyment and guilt while she administers swift justice to the scum of New York. One of the film's great strength's is Bain's initial weakness: She isn't automatically a Rambo; instead, she is awkward, unsure and fumbling while mastering her firearm.
"Disturbing" movies used to be my favorite kind of films. But the older I get, the harder they are to take. "The Brave One" is remarkably relentless and fairly graphic, particularly the upsetting attack scene that serves as the inciting incident.
Interestingly, to help us maintain our support of Erica's onslaught, the filmmakers give us repeated, brief flashbacks to that horrid event, so we can stay angry and justify her actions, a theme that's reinforced and carried throughout the film.
Despite the contrivance, "The Brave One" is solid, if some suspension of disbelief is allowed. We see other recurring themes, too, such as dominant female characters, various forms of recording the events of the city and the moral wrestle between doing what's right and doing what needs to be done.
Directed by Neil Jordan
Jodie Foster / Terrence Howard / Naveen Andrews
119 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence, language and some sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 191
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Not to be confused with the 1957 film called "The Brave One," which is about a Mexican boy and his bull, this brave one essentially refers to a female superhero (minus the super powers), much like Batman, who becomes a vigilante by taking the law into her own hands. And just like many other superhero stories, the villains create their monstrous tormentor.
And though it has been getting mixed reviews, this critic is here to tell you that this flick "delivers the goods," which is to say, it gives us exactly what we want. Without question, "The Brave One" manipulates us with Hollywood conventions and unlikely occurrences, but it's a good time nonetheless.
I noted that Jodie Foster's character, Erica Bain, evokes the same torn feelings within us that Michael Douglas' William Foster makes us feel in "Falling Down" (1993), another vigilante flick where a regular person goes berserk, lashing out at the evil people of the world. At first, we enjoy this to the point of amusement. But as the afflicted one spins out of control, we begin to cringe and grow concerned.
Erica Bain walks the city with a microphone, recording its organic and inorganic, auditory wonders. She uses these recordings as the ambient backdrop for her radio talk show, "Streetwalk." Bain is deeply in love and unofficially engaged to David (Naveen Andrews, "L O S T"). The wedding invitations have already been ordered.
One fateful night, the two inexplicably enjoy a streetwalk through Central park … again, at night. They are attacked and while she is merely brutally beaten, David is killed. Be warned, this scene is terribly unsettling, especially if you're the type of viewers who identifies with the characters.
As she recovers weeks later, still sore with fear, she purchases a gun and learns how to use it. The rest of the movie depicts Bain's bitterness, enjoyment and guilt while she administers swift justice to the scum of New York. One of the film's great strength's is Bain's initial weakness: She isn't automatically a Rambo; instead, she is awkward, unsure and fumbling while mastering her firearm.
"Disturbing" movies used to be my favorite kind of films. But the older I get, the harder they are to take. "The Brave One" is remarkably relentless and fairly graphic, particularly the upsetting attack scene that serves as the inciting incident.
Interestingly, to help us maintain our support of Erica's onslaught, the filmmakers give us repeated, brief flashbacks to that horrid event, so we can stay angry and justify her actions, a theme that's reinforced and carried throughout the film.
Despite the contrivance, "The Brave One" is solid, if some suspension of disbelief is allowed. We see other recurring themes, too, such as dominant female characters, various forms of recording the events of the city and the moral wrestle between doing what's right and doing what needs to be done.
Directed by Neil Jordan
Jodie Foster / Terrence Howard / Naveen Andrews
119 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence, language and some sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 191
D-War (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 48
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Back when I played with toys, it was only on rare, brief occasions that I would dump out the entire toy box and mix action figures, battling and blending different worlds. Why were those moments only rare and brief? Because it was just weird, and I knew better.
So I ask, why didn’t Hyung-rae Shim, the writer and director of “D-War,” know better?
“D-War” is a conglomeration of multiple other, much more successful fantasy films, with a comic-book quality plot. Oddly, the story explaining the movie’s events, which is already weak, is weakened further by additional, extensively complicated, uninteresting background elements.
Yes, “D-War” blatantly rips off (and poorly, I might add) so many other movies, I’d rather just plagiarize and copy and paste someone else’s review than revisit it by continuing to tell you about it.
Basically, if you’ve seen the droid-Gungan battle on Naboo in “The Phantom Menace” (1999), then you’ve already seen much of “D-War.” But I’m not talking about mere imitation, I’m speaking of potential copyright infringement. For instance, there are shields in “D-War” that you’ll recognize from “Phantom Menace.” And how about Phantom’s big creatures with big, round things strapped on their backs? “D-War” has those, too.
Do you remember seeing velociraptors in “Jurassic Park” (1993)? Because I remember seeing them in “D-War” (except they had wings). Oh, and remember the red-letter design for the CNN logo? “D-War” has the exact same design for its news station, CGNN. Why not simply use CNN, just as other movies do?
And another thing, let’s decide on a title. Although the IMDb.com lists this movie as “D-War,” the movie’s actual title screen reads: “D-War Dragon Wars.” That’s like writing my name “J-Pyle Jason Pyles”; it’s just redundant and repetitive. ... tee he. (Speaking of repetitive, the trailers make it seem like we will see a variety of beasts, but alas, there are only a few creatures repeatedly shown over and over.)
But, there are lots of martial artists. Yes, we go from a dinosaur-ish movie to a “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) meets “Shogun” (1980) amalgam. These characters don’t really work, either; nor do they fit.
I’ll do my best with the plot (and I’m not making this up): Every 500 years a woman is born with the power to turn a serpent into a dragon. A good serpent called “Imoogi” must unite with “Yuh Yi Joo,” which is something formed in the golden girl’s body, and then the Imoogi snake can turn into a dragon and ascend into heaven. But, there’s an evil serpent called “Buraki,” who has the same goal as Imoogi, but he’s evil. So, the last time the chance came, it didn’t work out. Now, 500 years later, the time has come for this opportunity again. Meanwhile, while these giant serpents try to find the Yuh Yi Joo possessor, they and their cohorts wreak havoc on civilization. I’m pretty sure I got all of that description correct.
I’m being so hard on “D-War” because I believe it could have been much better. Why not just make a movie where, without any explanation, monsters attack cities? That’s what we want to see from a movie like this, not Ryu Hayabusha’s (Ninja Gaiden) dating woes. This movie’s special effects, at times, are marvelous and occasionally rival any big-budget blockbuster’s CGI. The creatures will look convincingly real in one scene, then very crude in the next.
Yeah, I might like this movie if I were still seven years old. But maybe not. After all, I still kept the action figure sets separate during play, even at that age. I suggest that Hyung-rae Shim put all his toys back in the toy box and just focus on choosing one movie title. After that, he can work on writing a good story and screenplay. And if all goes well, then maybe he can play with his dinosaurs or ninjas, but not both.
Directed by Hyung-rae Shim
Jason Behr / Amanda Brooks / Robert Forster
107 min. Fantasy / Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and creature action)
Copyright 2007. 190
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Back when I played with toys, it was only on rare, brief occasions that I would dump out the entire toy box and mix action figures, battling and blending different worlds. Why were those moments only rare and brief? Because it was just weird, and I knew better.
So I ask, why didn’t Hyung-rae Shim, the writer and director of “D-War,” know better?
“D-War” is a conglomeration of multiple other, much more successful fantasy films, with a comic-book quality plot. Oddly, the story explaining the movie’s events, which is already weak, is weakened further by additional, extensively complicated, uninteresting background elements.
Yes, “D-War” blatantly rips off (and poorly, I might add) so many other movies, I’d rather just plagiarize and copy and paste someone else’s review than revisit it by continuing to tell you about it.
Basically, if you’ve seen the droid-Gungan battle on Naboo in “The Phantom Menace” (1999), then you’ve already seen much of “D-War.” But I’m not talking about mere imitation, I’m speaking of potential copyright infringement. For instance, there are shields in “D-War” that you’ll recognize from “Phantom Menace.” And how about Phantom’s big creatures with big, round things strapped on their backs? “D-War” has those, too.
Do you remember seeing velociraptors in “Jurassic Park” (1993)? Because I remember seeing them in “D-War” (except they had wings). Oh, and remember the red-letter design for the CNN logo? “D-War” has the exact same design for its news station, CGNN. Why not simply use CNN, just as other movies do?
And another thing, let’s decide on a title. Although the IMDb.com lists this movie as “D-War,” the movie’s actual title screen reads: “D-War Dragon Wars.” That’s like writing my name “J-Pyle Jason Pyles”; it’s just redundant and repetitive. ... tee he. (Speaking of repetitive, the trailers make it seem like we will see a variety of beasts, but alas, there are only a few creatures repeatedly shown over and over.)
But, there are lots of martial artists. Yes, we go from a dinosaur-ish movie to a “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) meets “Shogun” (1980) amalgam. These characters don’t really work, either; nor do they fit.
I’ll do my best with the plot (and I’m not making this up): Every 500 years a woman is born with the power to turn a serpent into a dragon. A good serpent called “Imoogi” must unite with “Yuh Yi Joo,” which is something formed in the golden girl’s body, and then the Imoogi snake can turn into a dragon and ascend into heaven. But, there’s an evil serpent called “Buraki,” who has the same goal as Imoogi, but he’s evil. So, the last time the chance came, it didn’t work out. Now, 500 years later, the time has come for this opportunity again. Meanwhile, while these giant serpents try to find the Yuh Yi Joo possessor, they and their cohorts wreak havoc on civilization. I’m pretty sure I got all of that description correct.
I’m being so hard on “D-War” because I believe it could have been much better. Why not just make a movie where, without any explanation, monsters attack cities? That’s what we want to see from a movie like this, not Ryu Hayabusha’s (Ninja Gaiden) dating woes. This movie’s special effects, at times, are marvelous and occasionally rival any big-budget blockbuster’s CGI. The creatures will look convincingly real in one scene, then very crude in the next.
Yeah, I might like this movie if I were still seven years old. But maybe not. After all, I still kept the action figure sets separate during play, even at that age. I suggest that Hyung-rae Shim put all his toys back in the toy box and just focus on choosing one movie title. After that, he can work on writing a good story and screenplay. And if all goes well, then maybe he can play with his dinosaurs or ninjas, but not both.
Directed by Hyung-rae Shim
Jason Behr / Amanda Brooks / Robert Forster
107 min. Fantasy / Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and creature action)
Copyright 2007. 190
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Invasion (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 78
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
I learned the hard way from “The Village” (2004) that there’s no accounting for taste. As with “The Village,” here again, we have a good movie such as “The Invasion” that everyone inexplicably seems to hate. Let me put it this way: If you liked “War of the Worlds” (2005), then you’ll like “The Invasion” almost as much.
“The Invasion,” of course, is the fourth remake of the original 1956 sci-fi thriller “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”
A brief history lesson from Jason:
The very first science fiction movie ever was “A Trip to the Moon” (1902). But the term “science fiction” wasn’t coined until the 1930s — and it wasn’t for film but for literature. Science fiction film blossomed (or should I say mutated?) in the 1950s. Why? Because two fears pertaining to technological development surfaced: anxieties from the Space Age and nuclear weapon development.
All of the fascinating, new science led to concerns like “What if this goes wrong?” The Space Age led us to wonder about extraterrestrial life “out there.” Communism, the Red Scare and the ensuing Cold War with Russia led to little beauties like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” which is basically an alien-movie metaphor for having a sabotaging enemy (Communists) secretly hidden among us in plain sight.
The humorous thing about “The Invasion” is, we have a cleverly placed Russian man as an homage to the underlying theme of the 1956 original. And, even better, we have a modernized message that basically mocks the United States for its present fears toward our “enemies of the world,” as if to suggest that we’re smitten by another unfounded hysteria, much like the Red Scare of the ‘50s. (I personally disagree with the message, but I still appreciate the filmmakers’ attempt at being cute.)
All of these invasion movies are essentially a spin on your traditional zombie flick. Here we have Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman), a good mom and professional woman who slowly realizes that some kind of epidemic is sweeping the Earth, turning its victims into emotionless, zombie-like versions of themselves.
That’s the plot. Kidman’s character has to try to keep herself and her son Oliver (Jackson Bond) from being body snatched.
“The Invasion” is gross and creepy. There is infectious projectile vomiting, much like we have in “28 Days (and Weeks) Later” (2002 and 2007), and violence toward children that aren’t exactly 100 percent children. Even so, it’s weird to watch. (Rest assured, “no children were actually harmed during the making of this film.”)
I guess what I’m trying to convey is that “The Invasion” is an effective thriller and not as benign as its critics claim. In fact, I’d bet my body that it will get under your skin.
Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel
Nicole Kidman / Daniel Craig / Jackson Bond
93 min. Sci-Fi / Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence, disturbing images and terror)
Copyright 2007.
JP0179 : 454
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
I learned the hard way from “The Village” (2004) that there’s no accounting for taste. As with “The Village,” here again, we have a good movie such as “The Invasion” that everyone inexplicably seems to hate. Let me put it this way: If you liked “War of the Worlds” (2005), then you’ll like “The Invasion” almost as much.
“The Invasion,” of course, is the fourth remake of the original 1956 sci-fi thriller “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”
A brief history lesson from Jason:
The very first science fiction movie ever was “A Trip to the Moon” (1902). But the term “science fiction” wasn’t coined until the 1930s — and it wasn’t for film but for literature. Science fiction film blossomed (or should I say mutated?) in the 1950s. Why? Because two fears pertaining to technological development surfaced: anxieties from the Space Age and nuclear weapon development.
All of the fascinating, new science led to concerns like “What if this goes wrong?” The Space Age led us to wonder about extraterrestrial life “out there.” Communism, the Red Scare and the ensuing Cold War with Russia led to little beauties like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” which is basically an alien-movie metaphor for having a sabotaging enemy (Communists) secretly hidden among us in plain sight.
The humorous thing about “The Invasion” is, we have a cleverly placed Russian man as an homage to the underlying theme of the 1956 original. And, even better, we have a modernized message that basically mocks the United States for its present fears toward our “enemies of the world,” as if to suggest that we’re smitten by another unfounded hysteria, much like the Red Scare of the ‘50s. (I personally disagree with the message, but I still appreciate the filmmakers’ attempt at being cute.)
All of these invasion movies are essentially a spin on your traditional zombie flick. Here we have Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman), a good mom and professional woman who slowly realizes that some kind of epidemic is sweeping the Earth, turning its victims into emotionless, zombie-like versions of themselves.
That’s the plot. Kidman’s character has to try to keep herself and her son Oliver (Jackson Bond) from being body snatched.
“The Invasion” is gross and creepy. There is infectious projectile vomiting, much like we have in “28 Days (and Weeks) Later” (2002 and 2007), and violence toward children that aren’t exactly 100 percent children. Even so, it’s weird to watch. (Rest assured, “no children were actually harmed during the making of this film.”)
I guess what I’m trying to convey is that “The Invasion” is an effective thriller and not as benign as its critics claim. In fact, I’d bet my body that it will get under your skin.
Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel
Nicole Kidman / Daniel Craig / Jackson Bond
93 min. Sci-Fi / Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence, disturbing images and terror)
Copyright 2007.
JP0179 : 454
Becoming Jane (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 84
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
Though it’s a major “girl movie,” if a guy wanted to make his gal feel very positively toward him, then he would be wise to take her to see “Becoming Jane.” It will work like a charm; I guarantee it.
Much like “Shakespeare in Love” (1998), this movie gives us a character whose life experiences provide inspirational material for her most famous work, “Pride and Prejudice.” Yes, Anne Hathaway plays Jane Austen, inhabiting her role in a most likeable way. Here we have a lovely fictionalized biography, mingled with a little fact.
Jane strictly adheres to all observations of propriety, but her aspirations toward becoming a female novelist disgruntle some. Worse yet, her family is one of diminishing means and she is yet to find a suitable suitor. Of course, her mother is affright with Jane's single state. Sound familiar? (Not you, Reader, I'm referring to miss Elizabeth Bennet's plight.) Alas, a happy ruffian (James McAvoy) is forced to visit; and much like Mr. Darcy, at first our "Elizabethan" Jane finds him repulsive, offensive, then tantalizing.
“Becoming Jane” has a few fist fights and a couple of male bare bottoms, but I suspect that most sensitive viewers will find its PG rating, more or less, appropriate.
Although it seems like a tricky way for Hollywood to recycle something that has worked in the past, “Becoming Jane” has some depth that I haven't seen in the filmed versions of “Pride and Prejudice.” Indeed, “Becoming Jane” is uncommonly good, sadly sweet and touching in unexpected ways.
Directed by Julian Jarrold
Anne Hathaway / James McAvoy / James Cromwell
120 min. Drama / Romance
MPAA: PG (for brief nudity and mild language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0182 : 254
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
Though it’s a major “girl movie,” if a guy wanted to make his gal feel very positively toward him, then he would be wise to take her to see “Becoming Jane.” It will work like a charm; I guarantee it.
Much like “Shakespeare in Love” (1998), this movie gives us a character whose life experiences provide inspirational material for her most famous work, “Pride and Prejudice.” Yes, Anne Hathaway plays Jane Austen, inhabiting her role in a most likeable way. Here we have a lovely fictionalized biography, mingled with a little fact.
Jane strictly adheres to all observations of propriety, but her aspirations toward becoming a female novelist disgruntle some. Worse yet, her family is one of diminishing means and she is yet to find a suitable suitor. Of course, her mother is affright with Jane's single state. Sound familiar? (Not you, Reader, I'm referring to miss Elizabeth Bennet's plight.) Alas, a happy ruffian (James McAvoy) is forced to visit; and much like Mr. Darcy, at first our "Elizabethan" Jane finds him repulsive, offensive, then tantalizing.
“Becoming Jane” has a few fist fights and a couple of male bare bottoms, but I suspect that most sensitive viewers will find its PG rating, more or less, appropriate.
Although it seems like a tricky way for Hollywood to recycle something that has worked in the past, “Becoming Jane” has some depth that I haven't seen in the filmed versions of “Pride and Prejudice.” Indeed, “Becoming Jane” is uncommonly good, sadly sweet and touching in unexpected ways.
Directed by Julian Jarrold
Anne Hathaway / James McAvoy / James Cromwell
120 min. Drama / Romance
MPAA: PG (for brief nudity and mild language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0182 : 254
Stardust (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
“Stardust” is the first great fantasy in years. OK, I guess since “The Lord of the Rings.” But “Stardust” has all of the necessary elements to carry us away into another world. Indeed “Stardust” is magical, wondrous, bizarre, humorous, creepy, whimsical, romantic and adventurous. All of these adjectives fit; I have not exaggerated one bit ... but I did just inadvertently rhyme. Oh, and “Stardust” has a voice-over narration by Ian McKellen ... how much better could it get?
Somewhere not too far from London lies a village that’s simply called “Wall”; and appropriately so, because the village has a wall that has required a 24-hour guard for years and years. The tireless guard stands at an opening in the wall and tries to keep villagers from passing through to the other side. The gap leads to another dimension, a magical kingdom called “Stormhold.”
As you might suspect, one of Wall’s adventurous youth ventures into Stormhold, entertains a captured princess for a night, and ends up with another adventurous youth of his own, nine months later. This new adventurous youth named Tristan (Charlie Cox) grows up and needs to pass over into Stormhold, too.
You see, Stormhold’s dying king’s antics to decide his heir among his equally vicious sons leads to the falling of a star (Claire Danes). Tristan seeks to find a piece of the star (which he imagines to be a rock), that he may win the heart of a superficial gal from Wall. Little does Tristan know, many others from Stormhold are also desperately seeking — not Susan, but the star.
Although it may seem like I have described too much too extensively, this is the mere setup for the plot. What it becomes is a delightful adventure, filled with ghastly (and not-so-ghastly) witches (such as Michelle Pfeiffer) and romantic comedy. “Stardust” has something to offer to each family member of varying ages and gender.
Oh, and be warned: If you’ve seen Robert De Niro in “Taxi Driver” (1976), then his role in “Stardust” may make your head explode. Scorsese will cry if he ever sees this movie.
Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Claire Danes / Michelle Pfeiffer / Charlie Cox
128 min. Fantasy
MPAA: PG-13 (for some fantasy violence and risqué humor)
Copyright 2007.
JP0178 : 350
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
“Stardust” is the first great fantasy in years. OK, I guess since “The Lord of the Rings.” But “Stardust” has all of the necessary elements to carry us away into another world. Indeed “Stardust” is magical, wondrous, bizarre, humorous, creepy, whimsical, romantic and adventurous. All of these adjectives fit; I have not exaggerated one bit ... but I did just inadvertently rhyme. Oh, and “Stardust” has a voice-over narration by Ian McKellen ... how much better could it get?
Somewhere not too far from London lies a village that’s simply called “Wall”; and appropriately so, because the village has a wall that has required a 24-hour guard for years and years. The tireless guard stands at an opening in the wall and tries to keep villagers from passing through to the other side. The gap leads to another dimension, a magical kingdom called “Stormhold.”
As you might suspect, one of Wall’s adventurous youth ventures into Stormhold, entertains a captured princess for a night, and ends up with another adventurous youth of his own, nine months later. This new adventurous youth named Tristan (Charlie Cox) grows up and needs to pass over into Stormhold, too.
You see, Stormhold’s dying king’s antics to decide his heir among his equally vicious sons leads to the falling of a star (Claire Danes). Tristan seeks to find a piece of the star (which he imagines to be a rock), that he may win the heart of a superficial gal from Wall. Little does Tristan know, many others from Stormhold are also desperately seeking — not Susan, but the star.
Although it may seem like I have described too much too extensively, this is the mere setup for the plot. What it becomes is a delightful adventure, filled with ghastly (and not-so-ghastly) witches (such as Michelle Pfeiffer) and romantic comedy. “Stardust” has something to offer to each family member of varying ages and gender.
Oh, and be warned: If you’ve seen Robert De Niro in “Taxi Driver” (1976), then his role in “Stardust” may make your head explode. Scorsese will cry if he ever sees this movie.
Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Claire Danes / Michelle Pfeiffer / Charlie Cox
128 min. Fantasy
MPAA: PG-13 (for some fantasy violence and risqué humor)
Copyright 2007.
JP0178 : 350
Superbad (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 51
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
My wife is a middle school Spanish teacher. On the first day of school, for an ice-breaking exercise, she asked her students to name their all-time favorite movies. What did they say? “Transformers,” “Hairspray,” “Pirates 3,” etc. You know, the movies that were just released this summer? So cute.
Those are middle schoolers, so it’s permissible. But what happens to America’s adults that they don’t grow out of this fickle, short-term memory phenomenon? The Internet Movie Database currently has “Superbad” ranked # 95 among the top 250 all-time greatest movies. Give me a break. When “The Bourne Ultimatum” was released just a couple of weeks ago, I heard numerous people declare that it was “the greatest action movie ever made!” Give me a full lunch.
And somehow, just a few weeks prior, we’ve already forgotten about “Live Free or Die Hard,” which has far more action sequences than “Bourne.” Sure, 52-year-old Bruce Willis doesn’t have the speed or the martial arts moves that 36-year-old Matt Damon has. But if we were to judge strictly on “action-packed-ness,” the fourth “Die Hard” movie is superior to the third “Bourne” movie. I know. Skeptics abound. (“The Bourne Ultimatum,” by the way, is ranked # 65 among the IMDb’s top 250. See what I mean?)
It is for this reason that I like to call “The Short-term Memory Fickle Phenomenon,” that we keep getting countless movies that have joke after joke of bodily functions, for example. And this is the same reason why high school and college kids will tell you (this month) that “Superbad” is “the greatest comedy ever made.”
I’m not a prude. I do, in fact, enjoy comedy and have a sense of humor. I laugh during every single episode of “The Office,” and I laugh till I cry while watching stand-up comedian Brian Regan. Sorry for this five-paragraph prelude rant, but basically, I’m here to tell you that “Superbad” is merely OK and not as great as everyone says it is. First of all, it’s not “Superbad,” but it’s bad enough. “Knocked Up,” however, could legitimately be called “superbad.”
High school is coming to a close for three friends. Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) are taking it particularly hard because they are best friends who will be separated by college admissions. Fogell, aka “McLovin’, (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is the third wheel who is more nerdy than the first two pals, but also, somehow cooler at the same time.
Graduation parties are spawning everywhere. The three friends find a way to get a VIP invitation by offering to provide the liquor with a newly acquired fake ID. In the process of obtaining the alcohol before the party, the three find themselves on an adventure that’s far more exciting than the party they’re planning to attend.
Sounds like a decent premise, right? Right. It actually is a good premise, because there are many elements that are true to that difficult era of a young man’s life. (I was not yet LDS in high school.)
So, with all of the nostalgia and some genuinely funny parts, why the disdain for “Superbad”? The excessive, disgustingly vulgar dialogue that infests the first half of the movie is overkill and not authentic. My crew of high school friends were no angels, and plenty vulgar, but they never talked like this. It was as if the screenwriters were trying way too hard to be “superbad.” If they would have eased up on the crudeness and “kept it real,” this movie could have been as good as the fair-weather moviegoers say it is. So, what’s my favorite comedy, then? Well, let me see what hit theaters yesterday, and I’ll tell you ...
Directed by Greg Mottola
Jonah Hill / Michael Cera / Christopher Mintz-Plasse
114 min. Comedy
MPAA: R (for pervasive crude and sexual content, strong language, drinking, some drug use and a fantasy/comic violent image – all involving teens)
Copyright 2007.
JP0180 : 615
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
My wife is a middle school Spanish teacher. On the first day of school, for an ice-breaking exercise, she asked her students to name their all-time favorite movies. What did they say? “Transformers,” “Hairspray,” “Pirates 3,” etc. You know, the movies that were just released this summer? So cute.
Those are middle schoolers, so it’s permissible. But what happens to America’s adults that they don’t grow out of this fickle, short-term memory phenomenon? The Internet Movie Database currently has “Superbad” ranked # 95 among the top 250 all-time greatest movies. Give me a break. When “The Bourne Ultimatum” was released just a couple of weeks ago, I heard numerous people declare that it was “the greatest action movie ever made!” Give me a full lunch.
And somehow, just a few weeks prior, we’ve already forgotten about “Live Free or Die Hard,” which has far more action sequences than “Bourne.” Sure, 52-year-old Bruce Willis doesn’t have the speed or the martial arts moves that 36-year-old Matt Damon has. But if we were to judge strictly on “action-packed-ness,” the fourth “Die Hard” movie is superior to the third “Bourne” movie. I know. Skeptics abound. (“The Bourne Ultimatum,” by the way, is ranked # 65 among the IMDb’s top 250. See what I mean?)
It is for this reason that I like to call “The Short-term Memory Fickle Phenomenon,” that we keep getting countless movies that have joke after joke of bodily functions, for example. And this is the same reason why high school and college kids will tell you (this month) that “Superbad” is “the greatest comedy ever made.”
I’m not a prude. I do, in fact, enjoy comedy and have a sense of humor. I laugh during every single episode of “The Office,” and I laugh till I cry while watching stand-up comedian Brian Regan. Sorry for this five-paragraph prelude rant, but basically, I’m here to tell you that “Superbad” is merely OK and not as great as everyone says it is. First of all, it’s not “Superbad,” but it’s bad enough. “Knocked Up,” however, could legitimately be called “superbad.”
High school is coming to a close for three friends. Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) are taking it particularly hard because they are best friends who will be separated by college admissions. Fogell, aka “McLovin’, (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is the third wheel who is more nerdy than the first two pals, but also, somehow cooler at the same time.
Graduation parties are spawning everywhere. The three friends find a way to get a VIP invitation by offering to provide the liquor with a newly acquired fake ID. In the process of obtaining the alcohol before the party, the three find themselves on an adventure that’s far more exciting than the party they’re planning to attend.
Sounds like a decent premise, right? Right. It actually is a good premise, because there are many elements that are true to that difficult era of a young man’s life. (I was not yet LDS in high school.)
So, with all of the nostalgia and some genuinely funny parts, why the disdain for “Superbad”? The excessive, disgustingly vulgar dialogue that infests the first half of the movie is overkill and not authentic. My crew of high school friends were no angels, and plenty vulgar, but they never talked like this. It was as if the screenwriters were trying way too hard to be “superbad.” If they would have eased up on the crudeness and “kept it real,” this movie could have been as good as the fair-weather moviegoers say it is. So, what’s my favorite comedy, then? Well, let me see what hit theaters yesterday, and I’ll tell you ...
Directed by Greg Mottola
Jonah Hill / Michael Cera / Christopher Mintz-Plasse
114 min. Comedy
MPAA: R (for pervasive crude and sexual content, strong language, drinking, some drug use and a fantasy/comic violent image – all involving teens)
Copyright 2007.
JP0180 : 615
Daddy Day Camp (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 34
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
X Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
I am writing this review from Provo, Utah where I live. For those of you who also live here (or nearby), you’ll probably be interested to know that “Daddy Day Camp” was filmed in Provo, in Park City, and though the Internet Movie Database doesn’t indicate this, I saw a sign for Heber City in the movie, too.
For those of you who don’t live in Utah, I’m sure you don’t care about any of these factoids, but my first paragraph is more entertaining than this movie. So, what does that tell ya?
“Daddy Day Camp” is a sequel to “Daddy Day Care” (2003), which slips us one of those actor substitutions and hopes we won’t notice. You know, where we replace Eddie Murphy with Cuba Gooding Jr.? Even the lesser-known co-star, Jeff Garlin, from the first movie opted out of reprising his role as Phil. So, what does that tell ya?
In short, “Daddy Day Camp” is precisely what you’d expect from what you see in the trailer: dumb physical comedy, overacting and plenty of jokes about nature and bodily functions (look below at the MPAA rating reasons). But these complaints don’t constitute the fatal flaw of “Daddy Day Camp.” The fatal flaw lies somewhere between the casting and the screenwriting, but I don’t know which one.
Allow me to explain: Cuba Gooding Jr., who is usually a fine actor, plays super dad, Charlie Hinton. Although he had bad experiences at camp as a boy, Charlie wants his son to have a positive experience at day camp. But when Camp Driftwood is in physical and financial ruin, and is threatened to be bought out by Charlie’s boyhood foe who runs the neighboring Camp Canola, Charlie and his day-care partner, Phil (Paul Rae), volunteer to take over the camp.
Competition between the camps ensues. Also, Charlie and Phil are terrible camp directors who are ignorant and incompetent outdoorsmen. So, they call in reinforcements and get some backup from Charlie’s father, Col. Buck Hinton (Richard Grant), a gung-ho marine.
Herein lies the fatal flaw: Charlie’s father is the coolest, most interesting character in the movie — not Gooding, who is supposed to be the movie’s star. Instead, poor Cuba is reduced to nothing more than a background figure who is an overacting, wimpy, whiny worry wart; but nevertheless, a good father.
If casting or the screenwriters would have allowed Gooding to shine as the hero, the movie would have been greatly improved, though still not great overall.
If you remember the TV show “The Wonder Years,” then you’ll remember Fred Savage, the man who directed this movie. Back then, Savage filled us with wonder as we reflected on the bittersweet nature of teenage years. Now, he’s left us to wonder why he took on a project like “Daddy Day Camp.”
This is an appropriate family movie, but you’d be much better off taking your family to see the much more wonderful “Evan Almighty.” It has a lot more animals, too.
Directed by Fred Savage
Cuba Gooding Jr. / Paul Rae / Richard Grant
93 min. Comedy / Family
MPAA: PG (for mild bodily humor and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0181 : 498
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
X Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 25, 2007
I am writing this review from Provo, Utah where I live. For those of you who also live here (or nearby), you’ll probably be interested to know that “Daddy Day Camp” was filmed in Provo, in Park City, and though the Internet Movie Database doesn’t indicate this, I saw a sign for Heber City in the movie, too.
For those of you who don’t live in Utah, I’m sure you don’t care about any of these factoids, but my first paragraph is more entertaining than this movie. So, what does that tell ya?
“Daddy Day Camp” is a sequel to “Daddy Day Care” (2003), which slips us one of those actor substitutions and hopes we won’t notice. You know, where we replace Eddie Murphy with Cuba Gooding Jr.? Even the lesser-known co-star, Jeff Garlin, from the first movie opted out of reprising his role as Phil. So, what does that tell ya?
In short, “Daddy Day Camp” is precisely what you’d expect from what you see in the trailer: dumb physical comedy, overacting and plenty of jokes about nature and bodily functions (look below at the MPAA rating reasons). But these complaints don’t constitute the fatal flaw of “Daddy Day Camp.” The fatal flaw lies somewhere between the casting and the screenwriting, but I don’t know which one.
Allow me to explain: Cuba Gooding Jr., who is usually a fine actor, plays super dad, Charlie Hinton. Although he had bad experiences at camp as a boy, Charlie wants his son to have a positive experience at day camp. But when Camp Driftwood is in physical and financial ruin, and is threatened to be bought out by Charlie’s boyhood foe who runs the neighboring Camp Canola, Charlie and his day-care partner, Phil (Paul Rae), volunteer to take over the camp.
Competition between the camps ensues. Also, Charlie and Phil are terrible camp directors who are ignorant and incompetent outdoorsmen. So, they call in reinforcements and get some backup from Charlie’s father, Col. Buck Hinton (Richard Grant), a gung-ho marine.
Herein lies the fatal flaw: Charlie’s father is the coolest, most interesting character in the movie — not Gooding, who is supposed to be the movie’s star. Instead, poor Cuba is reduced to nothing more than a background figure who is an overacting, wimpy, whiny worry wart; but nevertheless, a good father.
If casting or the screenwriters would have allowed Gooding to shine as the hero, the movie would have been greatly improved, though still not great overall.
If you remember the TV show “The Wonder Years,” then you’ll remember Fred Savage, the man who directed this movie. Back then, Savage filled us with wonder as we reflected on the bittersweet nature of teenage years. Now, he’s left us to wonder why he took on a project like “Daddy Day Camp.”
This is an appropriate family movie, but you’d be much better off taking your family to see the much more wonderful “Evan Almighty.” It has a lot more animals, too.
Directed by Fred Savage
Cuba Gooding Jr. / Paul Rae / Richard Grant
93 min. Comedy / Family
MPAA: PG (for mild bodily humor and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0181 : 498
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Rush Hour 3 (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 11, 2007
Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker are back again in their third “Rush Hour” movie. I doubt that buddy-cop movies will ever go out of style. But these two characters are getting to be a little like “Shrek” … enough is enough.
Even though “Rush Hour 3” is exactly what you’d expect it to be, which is more of the same, it’s actually the funniest of the three. There’s a delicate balance in the “Rush Hour” movies between the co-stars. They try to give equal time to Tucker’s comedy and Chan’s martial arts. But this movie seems to have more comedy.
Detective James Carter (Chris Tucker) and Chief Inspector Lee (Jackie Chan) are still, more or less, working for the LAPD. Looming over the globe is the imminent threat of a criminal empire called the Chinese Triad. (According to the Internet Movie Database, this is a real organization. “Rush Hour 3” has been banned in China because of the movie’s usage of the Triad, even though it’s fictitious usage.)
And that’s just about enough of the plot. Plot doesn’t matter in Jackie Chan movies, anyway. We go see “Rush Hour” to see Jackie Chan wax on crazy martial arts skills using some kind of bizarre prop, and to hear Chris Tucker’s smart mouth. But as you can imagine, we end up having the unlikely scenario of two cops from L.A. taking on the Triad — in France.
I need to reiterate that the movie is basically hilarious. There are some memorable scenes involving a giant, a translator, a duet, the Eiffel Tower and a French flag. Oh, and of course, the usual outtakes at the end.
My only caution for moviegoers is the sexual content. This “Rush Hour” is not only funnier, but also a little more risqué. Even though it’s rated PG-13, I think it borders closely on an R. As you can see from the MPAA’s assessment, there is sexual content and nudity, albeit brief and somewhat obscured.
I’ve done my duty. You know what to expect: a pretty funny karate movie sequel that’s just like the first two.
Directed by Brett Ratner
Jackie Chan / Chris Tucker / Noemie Lenoir
90 min. Comedy / Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of action violence, sexual content, nudity and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0177 : 349
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / August 11, 2007
Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker are back again in their third “Rush Hour” movie. I doubt that buddy-cop movies will ever go out of style. But these two characters are getting to be a little like “Shrek” … enough is enough.
Even though “Rush Hour 3” is exactly what you’d expect it to be, which is more of the same, it’s actually the funniest of the three. There’s a delicate balance in the “Rush Hour” movies between the co-stars. They try to give equal time to Tucker’s comedy and Chan’s martial arts. But this movie seems to have more comedy.
Detective James Carter (Chris Tucker) and Chief Inspector Lee (Jackie Chan) are still, more or less, working for the LAPD. Looming over the globe is the imminent threat of a criminal empire called the Chinese Triad. (According to the Internet Movie Database, this is a real organization. “Rush Hour 3” has been banned in China because of the movie’s usage of the Triad, even though it’s fictitious usage.)
And that’s just about enough of the plot. Plot doesn’t matter in Jackie Chan movies, anyway. We go see “Rush Hour” to see Jackie Chan wax on crazy martial arts skills using some kind of bizarre prop, and to hear Chris Tucker’s smart mouth. But as you can imagine, we end up having the unlikely scenario of two cops from L.A. taking on the Triad — in France.
I need to reiterate that the movie is basically hilarious. There are some memorable scenes involving a giant, a translator, a duet, the Eiffel Tower and a French flag. Oh, and of course, the usual outtakes at the end.
My only caution for moviegoers is the sexual content. This “Rush Hour” is not only funnier, but also a little more risqué. Even though it’s rated PG-13, I think it borders closely on an R. As you can see from the MPAA’s assessment, there is sexual content and nudity, albeit brief and somewhat obscured.
I’ve done my duty. You know what to expect: a pretty funny karate movie sequel that’s just like the first two.
Directed by Brett Ratner
Jackie Chan / Chris Tucker / Noemie Lenoir
90 min. Comedy / Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of action violence, sexual content, nudity and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0177 : 349
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
